Hollywood gets 500k grant to weave obamacare into storylines

[theDoctorisIn]

There is plenty of outrage that federal money has been used to fund rightwing causes in the case of Blackwater, including a huge smear campaign:

Through Bradley Manning, Jeremy Scahill Learned Blackwater?s Erik Prince Was Going to United Arab Emirates | The Dissenter

Erik Prince - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

Erik Prince, Former Blackwater CEO, Threatens Jan Schakowsky Over Her 'Defamatory Statements'

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/08/23-4

Right-Wing War Profiteer Erik Prince's New Project: Contracting Mercanaries Out to Arab Countries | Alternet

and even a connection to Hillsdale College


Hillsdale College is Right Wing U where Blackwater's Erik Prince went to school... (Reply #100) - Democratic Underground



Here's how this works: federal money is used to pay for the overhead and federally approved expenditures of this "private" (progressive) organization. Then private money is used to do all the rest, while being careful to not use the resources funded by federal money. So since there are all these people on staff anyway, and since the rent is covered by existing federal dollars, well then all of the private money can go towards some cause. Since it's private money, there's no problem.

Now find me an anti-abortion group that gets the same sweet deal.

Notice how it's just progressive causes that aren't funded with federal money but use organizations that receive massive federal grants for other activities and yet there is not one single conservative organization that has that same arrangement with the federal government.

The very best parallel is the faith-based charity initiatives that do not allocate federal money for overhead but do use federal money for federal assistance disbursement.

Oh, I think I understand what you're claiming now.

You're using these numbers: Rates at a Glance | Research | USC

...and claiming that because USC takes 32% of Federal grant money for overhead, they're paying for this.

Did you not notice that your own link shows that USC takes an even larger percentage for "Non-federal" grants?

Period Federal Non-Federal
7/1/2012 – 6/30/2013 32.80% (predetermined) 33.50%
7/1/2013 – 6/30/2014 32.80% (predetermined) 33.50% (provisional)
7/1/2012 – 6/30/2014 22.50% (postdoc) 22.50% (postdoc)

Yes.

That doesn't negate my point.

Of course it does. You can't claim that federal grant money earmarked as overhead is being used to support this project if this grant has an even greater percentage taken for overhead.

 

[asterism]

Oh, I think I understand what you're claiming now.

You're using these numbers: Rates at a Glance | Research | USC

...and claiming that because USC takes 32% of Federal grant money for overhead, they're paying for this.

Did you not notice that your own link shows that USC takes an even larger percentage for "Non-federal" grants?

Yes.

That doesn't negate my point.

Of course it does. You can't claim that federal grant money earmarked as overhead is being used to support this project if this grant has an even greater percentage taken for overhead.

There's the rub.

This document doesn't detail and agreement between a private organization and the non-profit, it details what the government allows. So USC is allowed to bill The California Endowment the amounts detailed, it does not require it.

Read a little bit more and you'll find out for yourself.


And again, who else gets such a sweet deal? What Social Security Privatization groups get the same support?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes.

That doesn't negate my point.

Of course it does. You can't claim that federal grant money earmarked as overhead is being used to support this project if this grant has an even greater percentage taken for overhead.

There's the rub.

This document doesn't detail and agreement between a private organization and the non-profit, it details what the government allows. So USC is allowed to bill The California Endowment the amounts detailed, it does not require it.

Read a little bit more and you'll find out for yourself.

So, you're basing your argument on the fact that it's possible that USC chose not to take that percentage in fees?

And again, who else gets such a sweet deal? What Social Security Privatization groups get the same support?

I'm fairly certain their have been private grants given to professors and researchers at various universities in support of SS privatization.

How would that be any different?

 

[asterism]

Of course it does. You can't claim that federal grant money earmarked as overhead is being used to support this project if this grant has an even greater percentage taken for overhead.

There's the rub.

This document doesn't detail and agreement between a private organization and the non-profit, it details what the government allows. So USC is allowed to bill The California Endowment the amounts detailed, it does not require it.

Read a little bit more and you'll find out for yourself.

So, you're basing your argument on the fact that it's possible that USC chose not to take that percentage in fees?

No. I'm basing my argument on the fact that there is no agreement for USC to recover overhead in this campaign because that's now how these things work. Overhead comes from the government pocket of money.

And again, who else gets such a sweet deal? What Social Security Privatization groups get the same support?

I'm fairly certain their have been private grants given to professors and researchers at various universities in support of SS privatization.

How would that be any different?

Well then you should back up your claim and show us some examples. Then to make an actual parallel argument show us a marketing campaign sponsored by USC in favor of Social Security Privatization.

Good luck with that. There aren't any.

 

[Kondor3]

As I recall from some light reading a day or two ago, the California Endowment is a 3.x billion (with a "B") trust fund, created in 1996, originally the result of a Blue Cross / Blue Shield start-up for public education on healthcare and advocacy for 'health equity'...

The Endowment apparently morphed into something else and separated from mothership Blue Cross and took-on high-profile health campaigns (such as a healthcare-related pet project for former California First Lady Maria Shriver) in order to make its bones - to make its rep and establish its bona fides on a broader scale..

It has a lot of high-priced talent on its executive team and staff (unless they're serving 'gratis' - yeah, right) and its primary mission seems to be to advocate for giving Po Folk and Black Folk and Latino Folk equal access to healthcare (big surprise)...

I wonder where the 3.x billion came from? That sounds like one helluva lot of money for one insurance carrier to toss into the pot for a start-up.

I wonder if they refresh their Treasury with monies channeled from elsewhere, or are they in business simply to burn-through their stash then to close their doors?

I could not find their Financials on their website, however, they do not accept donations, and their charter may not require them to publish same; therefore (assuming that they do not publish their financials) we seem to be dealing with a very rich, un-accountable Gatekeeper and Deciderer for where to spend Equal Health Access Propaganda Dollars.

And, of course, I find myself wondering whether California State Tax Dollars or Federal Tax Dollars are being channeled into this Endowment, either directly or through two- or three-hop souces which, in turn, act as gatekeepers for various tax-funded programming.

Without published finiancials and a paper-trail, we have no way of knowing.

That's my own first reaction, unless this has been covered elsewhere here, and I just missed it.

 

[Pogo]

Hollywood Gets A $500K Grant to Weave Obamacare into TV Storylines

amazing where dems get all this extra cash

No different to all the money McDonalds threw at the producers of Richie Rich to feature a McDonalds store in the film. If you can afford the promotion, why not?

because WE cant.

Excellent. So we can count on your support for decentralizing Big Media and untying Citizens United. Good to have you on board.